I'll add: "All humans are flawed, including you and I." Proof: pick up Don Quixote (my bible) and find the Chapters and Verses yourself. Then learn the Refranero Español (a record of popular wisdom-common sense). You are still redeemable: We can make a good Spanish Humanist out of you! (Not incompatible with Christianity Well Understood.) :wink:

I am not sure about becoming a Spanixh Humanist but you seem to be agreeing with many of the points I am making. I think that mayby it is you who is on the verge of a conversion. Can you hear the voice in the light saying "Come to Me Bardo"?

Your original question, in my opinion, is analogous to this one: How much money will my family have to spend on prayers to get me out of hell after I die? Will 10 Grand do? (Too many assumptions. To be fair, my analogy is exagerated: your question is much more open than mine.)

"[...] you seem to be agreeing with many of the points I am making." (Rhuiden)

I am. Some of your points ring true to me, and others I accept as dogma for the sake of our debate because I think that they are irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make.

"Come to Me Bardo" (Voice in the light)

I'm ripe! Where do I sign to become a Texan?

I love John Wayne. If you watched all of his movies looking for popular sayings that express wisdom and common sense, you could come up with a Refranero Texano. What would John Wayne say about the ethics of sin? He'd start with: "No sense in beating a dead horse, sonny."

Ok Emma your right (forget my remark about electricity),but I had a long hiking trip behind me and then after drinking some wine I was a little bit tired !

But now I try to explain my point of view a little bit better.

Earlier here you said

"That's what I meant when I said that actions that are harmful to a society will be classed as immoral normally. That's how morals started out."

and

"There is not such thing as good or evil in the natural word, we make that definition. Therefore it is something that comes from within us,it is in us, in our minds and so we can think about it and understand..."

You are absolutely right Emma, but you do not make the final step why it is so!

The question is why a human beeing is able "... of working on this problemand a conclusion philosophically."This ability must have come to us in some way. I have to go a little bit back in time. For about 8 or 6 million years from a common ancestor two branches split up, one which once become humans and one which become apes.From there biology humans and apes do not differ very much, about 99% from the genes of a human and a chimpanzee are the same. But chimpanzee are still the same they where all the thousand of years before - animals !So if evolution would have done the job of "giving" humans the ability of developing a consciousness and therefor the definition of moral standards, why do this not work in an equal way at apes ?Ok you can object that the different environments both had to face in the past (the ancestor of humans where - by geological processes in East africa - pressed to survive in open woodlands and have to develop new abilities while those of the apes stay in the jungle) are one main reason. But can the gap be so great? After at least 6 millon years the apes arestill animals why does evolution have done such a bad job at them ? And consider the many opportunities and trials evolution had in all the time life exists - which lead to really remarkable creatures - but only at humans some thing happens which happend to no other living beeing again (or before). So being able to consider about good or bad, is a thing evolution or any other - by scientific means - process could not do!There have to be a mightier power to do this - a creator ("And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever" (King James Version; Genisis 3/22 ))

How much then in the course of history God take influence in giving men some moral standard (as described in the holy books all religons had) we can hardly prove thats really a matter of true faith!

And Bardo de Saldo just one sentence to the bible again. What´s wrong with the "PRISON" ? Especially there you need a book worth to think about its content!

And consider the many opportunities and trials evolution had in all the time life exists - which lead to really remarkable creatures - but only at humans some thing happens which happend to no other living beeing again (or before). So being able to consider about good or bad, is a thing evolution or any other - by scientific means - process could not do!

I have more faith in evolution than you. Why is it that we can think of good and evil? Because we can think about more complex subjects, that's why. And why can we do that? Because we can talk and have language, if we didn't have language we would not be able to think as we do. Try and think about a complex subject, or try to think at all, without using words in your mind - difficult, eh? But as soon as you introduce language - bam! there you have it, we are able to come up with complex thoughts.
And what do you make of the neanderthal? Did god's little experiment with humans just go wrong? They didn't turn out as he had hoped, so he made modern man instead and let his other creation die out cause he was ashamed that he, the infallable, had made a mistake somewhere? We humans have only been around a short while, evolution does not favour the most intellegent or those with the most sophisticated culture, it works on the sole principle that those who survive get to reproduce. The goal of evolution you could say is to survive. We've not been around for that long as I've said, but cockroaches have. So why do you think that we are better than cockroaches in terms of evolution? Evolutionary cockroaches are perfection, the race of cockroaches was there before we were and probably will be there when we die out. That we consider their existance dumb and lame is because we can think and they can't think really. But that does not mean the we are the 'perfection' of evolution.
We are remarkable creatures, to our own mind, but if we personify evolution, I think it would laugh at us and show us the cockroach. Why should evolution care about science and culture? It doesn't, it's just a principle. It's a principle that also goes along the lines of: every step of a creature's evolution must give its species a better chance of survival or at least not harm it's chances of survival in any way. I think once you understand that principle you can understand evolution better. Why did it take so long, millions apon millions of years for the feathered bird to come into existance, eventhough it is clear that you can only fly properly with feathers? The answer is that mutations happen slowly so there is no way that you can go from dino to bird in a matter of days, it has to develope slowly. The dino has to become cold and need some sort of feather like fur ... etc... each step in the evolution of the feather must bring it one step closer to ensuring it's species survival. If you have some kind of feathery fur, that's good in cold weather maybe, or keeps of insects, what ever.
For language to be able to develope need parts of the brain which can comprehend such a thing as syntax. Our ape-like ancestors left the forest - so that meaned they faced different problems, their brains had to adapt - the apes stayed in the forest, theirs adapted in a different way to their different surrowndings. Something our brains had to do then to understand life out in the open helped us along a bit on our way to making a brain that would one day be able to comprehend language.

mingshey wrote:It is the doctrin you happened to be initiated in. The doctrin directs you how to read Bible. It is not in Bible that you find the authority, but in the doctrin.

I might be willing to agree with you on this point if I had grown up in a Christian home with Christian parents. I did not. Neither of my parents were Christian and neither went to church. I started going to church in junior high but I was not trying to get close to God, I was trying to get close to the cute girls in the youth group.

God changed my life when I was 26. He brought me to a place where I was able to realize my need for a Saviour. I realized He had been calling me for some time but I had been running from Him. Once I realized my need, I asked Him to be my Lord and Saviour and He had accepted me into His family. It was only then that I began to study the Bible, I had no doctrine or understanding of Biblical teachings before that.

Emma_85 wrote:I have more faith in evolution than you. Why is it that we can think of good and evil? Because we can think about more complex subjects, that's why. And why can we do that? Because we can talk and have language, if we didn't have language we would not be able to think as we do. Try and think about a complex subject, or try to think at all, without using words in your mind - difficult, eh? But as soon as you introduce language - bam! there you have it, we are able to come up with complex thoughts. And what do you make of the neanderthal? Did god's little experiment with humans just go wrong? They didn't turn out as he had hoped, so he made modern man instead and let his other creation die out cause he was ashamed that he, the infallable, had made a mistake somewhere? :roll: We humans have only been around a short while, evolution does not favour the most intellegent or those with the most sophisticated culture, it works on the sole principle that those who survive get to reproduce. The goal of evolution you could say is to survive. We've not been around for that long as I've said, but cockroaches have. So why do you think that we are better than cockroaches in terms of evolution? Evolutionary cockroaches are perfection, the race of cockroaches was there before we were and probably will be there when we die out. That we consider their existance dumb and lame is because we can think and they can't think really. But that does not mean the we are the 'perfection' of evolution. We are remarkable creatures, to our own mind, but if we personify evolution, I think it would laugh at us and show us the cockroach. Why should evolution care about science and culture? It doesn't, it's just a principle. It's a principle that also goes along the lines of: every step of a creature's evolution must give its species a better chance of survival or at least not harm it's chances of survival in any way. I think once you understand that principle you can understand evolution better. Why did it take so long, millions apon millions of years for the feathered bird to come into existance, eventhough it is clear that you can only fly properly with feathers? The answer is that mutations happen slowly so there is no way that you can go from dino to bird in a matter of days, it has to develope slowly. The dino has to become cold and need some sort of feather like fur ... etc... each step in the evolution of the feather must bring it one step closer to ensuring it's species survival. If you have some kind of feathery fur, that's good in cold weather maybe, or keeps of insects, what ever. For language to be able to develope need parts of the brain which can comprehend such a thing as syntax. Our ape-like ancestors left the forest - so that meaned they faced different problems, their brains had to adapt - the apes stayed in the forest, theirs adapted in a different way to their different surrowndings. Something our brains had to do then to understand life out in the open helped us along a bit on our way to making a brain that would one day be able to comprehend language.

Emma, if you truly believe what you have typed here, you truly have great faith.

Rhuiden wrote:I might be willing to agree with you on this point if I had grown up in a Christian home with Christian parents. I did not. Neither of my parents were Christian and neither went to church. I started going to church in junior high but I was not trying to get close to God, I was trying to get close to the cute girls in the youth group.

God changed my life when I was 26. He brought me to a place where I was able to realize my need for a Saviour. I realized He had been calling me for some time but I had been running from Him. Once I realized my need, I asked Him to be my Lord and Saviour and He had accepted me into His family. It was only then that I began to study the Bible, I had no doctrine or understanding of Biblical teachings before that.

Rhuiden

I'd say in any case you have an attitude(if not doctrine, that man is inferior to God in knowing between Good and Bad) to interpret the Bible. But I can hardly make any deeper analysis of your stance.

How about looking at the problem in a different point of view? If you cannot properly tell Good from Bad, How can you know if Bible is good or bad? And how can you know if the God who guide you is good or bad? How can you know if your sense of the necessity for a Savior is good or bad?

Last edited by mingshey on Wed Apr 20, 2005 12:55 pm, edited 2 times in total.

mingshey wrote:How about looking at the problem in a different point of view? If you cannot properly tell Good from Bad, How can you know if Bible is good or bad? And how can you know if the God who guide you is good or bad? How can you know if your sense of the necessity for a Savior is good or bad?

My point is that I can tell good from bad because I have learned it from my studies of the Bible. God's word (the Bible) is the final authority on what is good and bad. God is good because it is His nature to be good and because what He had done for me.

mingshey wrote:How about looking at the problem in a different point of view? If you cannot properly tell Good from Bad, How can you know if Bible is good or bad? And how can you know if the God who guide you is good or bad? How can you know if your sense of the necessity for a Savior is good or bad?

My point is that I can tell good from bad because I have learned it from my studies of the Bible. God's word (the Bible) is the final authority on what is good and bad. God is good because it is His nature to be good and because what He had done for me.

Rhuiden

yeah, yeah... but mingshey's question is how do you know that the Bible is good, if humans aren't able to determine that by themselves? It's a logical problem, like 'the instructions on how to open this box are in the box'.

The funny part about the Bible is how most "Christians" use it to justify their un-Christian behavior. Let's face it: to be a Christian you don't need a Bible. The apostles didn't hand out literature, to my knowledge. Even in the days before photocopiers, Christ did his miracle with bread and fish, not bread, fish and flyers. Any average 10 year old understands Christianity from hearing the gospels once, without the need of foot notes or etymologies. It takes an unrepentant sinner to look for the fine print.

Take some televangelists, for example. They'll quote the most obscure passages to tell you how God wants you to be rich by giving them (the televangelists) your money (their Bibles seem to be missing the part about the camel and the needle and how God provides for all his creatures). When they start twitching "involuntarily" (proof of direct connection with the Holy Spirit) I run to the phone!

Last edited by Bardo de Saldo on Thu Apr 21, 2005 1:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

Ooh! Excellent point Bardo! Does not Jezus ipse keep calling the scholars hypocrites and tell his disciples to be like children, i.e. being good, or how Jezus wants us to be, comes from within through birth and not from studying every letter of the bible?

Emma_85 wrote:yeah, yeah... but mingshey's question is how do you know that the Bible is good, if humans aren't able to determine that by themselves? It's a logical problem, like 'the instructions on how to open this box are in the box'.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1:1

"And Jesus said to him, Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone." Luke 18:19

Since God is the Word (the Bible) and God is good, then the Word is good.

Emma_85 wrote:yeah, yeah... but mingshey's question is how do you know that the Bible is good, if humans aren't able to determine that by themselves? It's a logical problem, like 'the instructions on how to open this box are in the box'.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1:1

"And Jesus said to him, Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone." Luke 18:19

Since God is the Word (the Bible) and God is good, then the Word is good.

Yeah, it is written so in the Bible. It is like saying "I'm good, because I said I'm good. You can believe me because I'm good, How do you know I'm good? Because I said I'm good, ..."

Bardo de Saldo wrote:The funny part about the Bible is how most "Christians" use it to justify their un-Christian behavior. Let's face it: to be a Christian you don't need a Bible. The apostles didn't hand out literature, to my knowledge. Even in the days before photocopiers, Christ did his miracle with bread and fish, not bread, fish and flyers. Any average 10 year old understands Christianity from hearing the gospels once, without the need of foot notes or etymologies. It takes an unrepentant sinner to look for the fine print.

Very true that you don't need a Bible to be Christian. We need the Bible, though, to become mature Christians. The apostles did write many letters, some of which were divinely inspired and were later compiled into our Bible. The difference between then and now is that the apostles were eye witnesses to what Jesus had done. They did not have to study in order to be able to teach. The events were burned into their memories. The were very passionate because of what they had seen and participated in. What kind of impression would it make on you if you had witnessed Jesus perform the miracle with the loaves and fishes. There are obviously no eye witnesses still around today so all we have is our studies of the Bible.

Bardo de Saldo wrote:Take some televangelists, for example. They'll quote the most obscure passages to tell you how God wants you to be rich by giving them (the televangelists) your money (their Bibles seem to be missing the part about the camel and the needle and how God provides for all his creatures). When they start twitching "involuntarily" (proof of direct connection with the Holy Spirit) I run to the phone!

Unfortunately, i share your perception of televangelists. Most, if not all, are more interested in separating their followers from their money than helping them get closer to God. They use the Gospel for personal gain. Although the claim to be Christian, I have my doubts. Also, for the record, I do not believe in speaking in tongues or the "twitching" as practiced in some charasmatic churches.

mingshey wrote:Yeah, it is written so in the Bible. It is like saying "I'm good, because I said I'm good. You can believe me because I'm good, How do you know I'm good? Because I said I'm good, ..."

Yes, but if you said you were good your actions and words would confirm that. If they didn't it would be obvious to everyone who knew you. God and the Word both claim to be good and their actions (as written in the Word) comfirm it.

mingshey wrote:Yeah, it is written so in the Bible. It is like saying "I'm good, because I said I'm good. You can believe me because I'm good, How do you know I'm good? Because I said I'm good, ..."

Yes, but if you said you were good your actions and words would confirm that. If they didn't it would be obvious to everyone who knew you. God and the Word both claim to be good and their actions (as written in the Word) comfirm it.

Rhuiden

It seems to be a nice criterion. But how do you know my actions and words are good enough to confirm my claim, if you cannot properly tell good from bad in the first place?
And now the authority is not in my words. Similarly, you'll have to monitor the works of God, if you are to judge the goodness of Bible. But then again, if you cannot tell the goodness of the works of God, how can you confirm the goodness of Bible?

P.S.
Even this argument is upon the supposition that your criterion is a good one. But the soundness of the criterion is on an unstable ground, if you cannot properly know if it is a good one.

Rhuiden wrote:"And Jesus said to him, Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone." Luke 18:19

Since God is the Word (the Bible) and God is good, then the Word is good.

Maybe the church was wrong to say that Jesus and God are one and the same? But I suppose it was only that one conference of the Chatholic church way back that decided if Christianity would be monotheist or not, it was only decided in favour of monotheism by a few votes as i recall (Conference of Chalcedon). That was 5th or 6th century AD, I doubt that any of the church leaders there actually new Jesus or even anyone who had knows him. And you think that I believe in Evolution requires 'a leap in faith'

Emma_85 wrote:And you think that I believe in Evolution requires 'a leap in faith' :roll: :P

I admit that Christianity requires faith. Jesus' whole ministry was predicated on "Grace through Faith". Most evolutionists claim they have science and not faith but in reality they may have more faith than Christians do (but that is another topic altogether).

mingshey wrote:Even this argument is upon the supposition that your criterion is a good one. But the soundness of the criterion is on an unstable ground, if you cannot properly know if it is a good one.

Your argument is strong but invalid in my opinion. I have the most solid foundation available (the Bible). It is true that I cannot know good from evil apart from God but when He becomes my Lord and Saviour and the Holy Spirits dwells within me, He tells me the difference.

mingshey wrote:Even this argument is upon the supposition that your criterion is a good one. But the soundness of the criterion is on an unstable ground, if you cannot properly know if it is a good one.

Your argument is strong but invalid in my opinion. I have the most solid foundation available (the Bible). It is true that I cannot know good from evil apart from God but when He becomes my Lord and Saviour and the Holy Spirits dwells within me, He tells me the difference.

Rhuiden

Huh? what was that about needing more faith to believe in evolution?

Anyway, you're right, the question whether or not Ged exists is something else (should be debated in the religion thread a few topics down).

So you're saying that you would normally not be able to tell the difference between good and evil, but can tell the difference between good and evil because God is in you? But only when you believe in him (is that what you mean when you say that he becomes your lord and saviour?), otherwise not? If he were always in you, like in every human, even those who don't believe, then everyone could tell the difference between good and evil, which you say is only really possible if you believe in God and follow the Bible.
So, you believe in him and so he show's you what's right. How come then need the Bible at all, if he tells you what's right and wrong by being 'inside you'? Or if you need the Bible to believe in God, then you didn't believe in him before and so he was never with you to tell you that the bible was good in the first place and you would not have known it to be good.
Too me it seems all you've done is reformulated what you said before, there's still a problem with your logic.

"Father, Father, the Huns are coming!"
"Not to worry, my flock, nothing happens if it's not the will of God."
"What should we do, Father?"
"Like Christ said, we'll treat them like we would like them to treat us."
"What if they hurt us, Father?"
"That's a no-brainer: we'll offer the other cheek."
"What about our women and children, Father?"
"Have faith! Didn't God part the waters of the Red Sea for his peeps? Best case scenario, we'll all be in Heaven by tomorrow."
"What about all the bacon and wine in your cellar, Father?"
"Good point! Let's see what the Book of David has to say about the slaying of Goliath..."
"But what about what you said before about the teachings of Christ?"
"Don't be inmature! I'm sure He didn't really mean that! Look at this passage in the Septuagint..."

I feel lucky, Mingshey. The truth is that I don't have a problem with sin, and my consciense is virginal. I was trying to translate the Christian "that which keeps us from Heaven: sin" to the Buddhist "that which keeps us in the wheel of reincarnations: karma". Was that a bad comparison? How do Koreans translate 'sin'? Do you have an official list of sins like the 7 Capitals?

.

Since I used before the Septuagint (now I know what it is) as the butt of my joke, I'd like to add for my scholarly friends of the biblical persuasion that theology is not un-Christian. Furthermore, I'd rather have 12 sinning Christians as neighbors (as long as they are not all evangelists ) than a saintly Charlesmansonian.

In defense of the Bible as a valid argument in this debate, I'll say that it is a record of a code of ethics that deal with sin. It is a good reference. Whatever we call sin, the Christians didn't invent it, but turned it into an art.

Bardo de Saldo wrote:How do Koreans translate 'sin'? Do you have an official list of sins like the 7 Capitals?

The traditional capital sin for Koreans was, under the strong influence of Confucianism, to fail to honour your parents, and the next was to be disloyal to your king.

In defense of the Bible as a valid argument in this debate, I'll say that it is a record of a code of ethics that deal with sin. It is a good reference. Whatever we call sin, the Christians didn't invent it, but turned it into an art.

I agree with this. There're a bunch of capitalist morals as well, fully useful for modern life.

I never intended to argue in this direction. I am sorry so you misunderstood me because of my bad english! With your comments about the principles of evolution I agree with you in most parts, and to the few ones I disagree here some "litte remarks".

1."it (evolution) works on the sole principle that those who survive get to reproduce"
So what about these litte story:
A man is comming home telling his wife."Guess wife what happend this day to me ! I meet a really beautifull woman and she was willing to make new life with me!
His wife then saying with a smile "Hey great, hope you had some fun!"

So if we are in whole evoulution based would this not be quite normal ? But in fact, doing so the man is "violating his conscience" because something within him "told" him that he made wrong. And his wife - so she get known of that - would be everything but not happy !

2."Why should evolution care about science and culture? It doesn't, it's just a principle."

Yes, it´s a principle and such a principle does not include the creation of an ability to know about good and bad, because for what reason ?!
So where does this human ability comes from, so evolution has no use for it ? That´s what I want to say, no other creature has it ! So this brings me to the next point.

3. "Why did it take so long, millions apon millions of years for the feathered bird to come into existance, eventhough it is clear that you can only fly properly with feathers?"

So please tell me Emma what bats or bees,butterfly´s and so many other insects then doing? Do they not fly very well and that without feathers. Try to catch a fly while she´s flying - difficult, eh? Things that proved useful where "invented" not only once in the flow of evolution!

4. "And what do you make of the neanderthal?"

They lost the game "survival of the fittest" !
I do not believe God control the evolution, he only set it in motion, and - ok- only one time he intervene so that "a shaggy ape like little creature got the ability to become a human!"

I never intended to argue in this direction. I am sorry so you misunderstood me because of my bad english! With your comments about the principles of evolution I agree with you in most parts, and to the few ones I disagree here some "litte remarks".

1."it (evolution) works on the sole principle that those who survive get to reproduce"So what about these litte story:A man is comming home telling his wife."Guess wife what happend this day to me ! I meet a really beautifull woman and she was willing to make new life with me!His wife then saying with a smile "Hey great, hope you had some fun!"

So if we are in whole evoulution based would this not be quite normal ? But in fact, doing so the man is "violating his conscience" because something within him "told" him that he made wrong. And his wife - so she get known of that - would be everything but not happy !

2."Why should evolution care about science and culture? It doesn't, it's just a principle."

Yes, it´s a principle and such a principle does not include the creation of an ability to know about good and bad, because for what reason ?!So where does this human ability comes from, so evolution has no use for it ? That´s what I want to say, no other creature has it ! So this brings me to the next point.

3. "Why did it take so long, millions apon millions of years for the feathered bird to come into existance, eventhough it is clear that you can only fly properly with feathers?"

So please tell me Emma what bats or bees,butterfly´s and so many other insects then doing? Do they not fly very well and that without feathers. Try to catch a fly while she´s flying - difficult, eh? Things that proved useful where "invented" not only once in the flow of evolution!

4. "And what do you make of the neanderthal?"

They lost the game "survival of the fittest" !I do not believe God control the evolution, he only set it in motion, and - ok- only one time he intervene so that "a shaggy ape like little creature got the ability to become a human!"

oh, and sorry for any spelling mistakes etc that I make, I don't have word to check my spelling for me

Ok, to your first point - there are many examples in nature of species in which the male and female from life-long bonds. A cockroach does not, but the again all cockroaches do is lay eggs, they don't have to go and spend years of their lives looking after the little buggers, they just leave the eggs somewhere and that's it. Humans however need a little more care. Or think of birds - they too often stick to just one partner, in some cases for life, in other's just for one season (similar to humans?). The reason is that they don't lay millions of eggs, they've got to make sure that the few they do lay survive - like with humans. To nurture these young takes time and engery, if human me were to go around creating offspring with different females, who would care for the offspring? You couldn't be sure who'd children were who's and so the men would not want to invest all that energy into their upbringing. Only if you invest a lot of energy though, does it work out. So they must be bound to those children in order to have the energy to provide for them in the first few years (until say four years old). Other species like lions instead allow just the dominant males to have children - the pack leaders know what they are 'fighting' for as it were.

2) Evolution does indeed not care about culture or such like in my opinion. Science and culture are not programmed into our genes, all that is is our ability to talk and communicate with each other. This ability to talk was probably very useful - think how much better you can survive if you can tell others exactly where to find the next spring, the next river, which berries are edible, which poisones, how to hunt down that cattle together etc.
Culture is a by-product. Being able to talk (and so also think complex thoughts, which is not possible without language) is what evolution came up with. It didn't think: if they can talk they can have culture - because it's just a principle - it didn't care. But - of course culture and science are beneficial to our survival, so I suppose you could say that the fact that we came up with them is because of evolution - I like to think of evolution as just the biological aspect though, would you agree? Because we do not have to follow our culture, we have a choice. We came up with culture because it was good for our society, but in some cases this backfired, there are many examples where our civilisation has lead to millions dying. We came up with our civilisation ourself, because we had developed language, but because we came up with it, means that culture does not have to follow the principles of evolution. Why for example build pyramids? What good does that do anyone? To answer such questions the theory of evolution cannot apply, because what we are talking about now is understanding this culture we developed. That our cultures are influenced by nature early on and less so the more we are apart from nature is also evident. Ok, enought of that (so far I feel that I'm winning )

next point:

3) Ok, let me reformulate that: the feather was only 'invented' once. We mamals could have done with them too. Wouldn't it be great it humans could fly too? Lol
I see your point - flying orrcurs more than once, it is a space that could be used and wasn't, so those who managed to 'get up there first' had it all to themselves and many advantages.
The 'realm' of thinking can only come about if you have language, I've already said that. The 'realm' of the sky requires wings. Let's take the bat, that is a very easy example for me to show you what I mean. The bat is a mouse sitting an tree that wishes to quickly get to another tree without having to climb down and crawl over the snake-infested wood floor (for example). Those mice who have a tiny bit of skin between their front paws can more easily keep their balance and get across. The more skin the better - but each bit of skin helps on the way, there is no stopping them. Each bit of evolution towards the wing means they can cross larger distances without getting eaten by a snake. Those with more skin survive to produce offspring with their genes, the others get eaten up by snakes. So the realm of the air was an advantage - straight away!
As I've said, first humans must have a means of communication. But the 'goal' of communication is not to reach the realm of philosophy, but the realm of 'how do we survive the coming storm?'
All steps on the way to language, brought us closer to complex thought. But philosophy would not have helped early man survive, what was more important was, as I said before, the ability to pass on critical information. Now take dolphins, apparently they are pretty intelligent and have a way which could/or already is being used to communicate. We have no idea what they are saying, maybe not much, but this 'system' they have, could be used as a language. Why is it not? How would it help dolphin to be able to talk? It doesn't have to tell it's young how to make this or that tool and seeing as it's already living in the ocean for a long time, the routes which it takes around the oceans are probably already ingrained like instinct into their brains. They most likely know automatically what to do when their are born. As soon as a human is born he needs protection and can't do anything - a dolphin is born in the sea, if it didn't know what to do, it might die pretty soon. Basically I don't know much about dolphins, but their environment doesn't seem to be like ours, one that really gives those who invent language such a huge advantage. So it never fully developed, maybe only enough to tell each other where the fish are. We however can tell each other how to make tools, how to build houses, how to look for water, how to cut wood etc... any human with the abiltiy to pass such information on clearly has a huge advantage.
So you need a species that can communicate- one that needs to communicate in order to survive - let's face it, our ape ancestors must have had a hard time coming out of that jungle. They were pretty useless on the flat plains to say the least. Just picture them in your mind - pathetic compared to a hoard of lions or elephants. You can't grow huge teeth, longer, more powerful legs etc, within such a short space of time. So they had to learn how to hide, make spears, find things to eat without getting eaten my lions. All of which requires not physical, but mental abilities. Our ape-ancestors luckily had developed good 'brains' and that little thing that could turn into a thumb, because they had to be able to judge distances when they jumped from tree to tree maybe and had to be able to hold on pretty well - to be good at these things was very important then.
In the world of dinosaurs there may have been an intelligent dinosaur, but as they were all pee-brained that's not that likely. Mamals though are more intelligent in general and we haven't been around that long. Insects are too small to be intelligent, you need neural pathways, dinos are very different from us, more like birds, there are probably many reasons why it was hard for any intelligence to emerge in them. You'd need something that was able to make tools and had a good brain. Dinosaurs in trees would devolope the thumb maybe, I can think of pretty few other environments in which the thumb would emerge. In a forest you have to be able to get a good grip on the branches of the trees you are jumping too, to get a hold on them and not fall off - each step on the way to having a thumb, is an improvement. But trees had not been invented then! -they had huge palm trees! So, first you need real trees. Millions of years until you get them.So then, when trees were around you needed these thumb-dinos to be forces out of the forest, otherwise why bother with new mental abilities? But then there was the big t-rex who just ate them up, as soon as the pathetic things emerged Basically I'm saying that the realm of 'thought' is not as straigh-forward a concept as 'reaching the sky'. It's easy to see how each step of reaching the sky brings the species better chances of survival. But 'philosophy' - to reach that is not as straight-forward. You must go through many more difficulties before it is of any benefit for a species to have to develope sophisticated communication.

4) I don't buy that, hehehe. God made sure many human races would come into being and then just let them all die out to see which one would survive? Eh...
look, it surprises me no end anyway, how you can believe in evolution, life after death (if he care about us enough to give us a soul, something non-physical, when did he give it too us in our evoltion, if he doesn't care about us enough to just make one species to start with?) Know what i mean? If God really cares that much, he won't go about just only intervening in that one step to make sure that intelligence can surface on earth. It's just not plausible. But if you do believe in such devine intervention, in non-physical souls etc - if you admit that non-physical things and the supernatural exist - then why don't you believe in ghosts? I know you don't or Reki? hehehe
If all God does is make sure there is some form of intelligence on the planet, you may as well believe that aliens came in a UFO and made sure that happened before getting back onto their spaceship and flying on.

Ok Emma, after thinking a bit over this matter and your comments, I have - at the moment - no strong evidences to proof my point of view in a scientific way. In the internet - I have had just a short glimse about this matter - may are some usefull information about this and when I have more time again I want to have a look for it.Because the matter we talked about is really interesting and I think there is enough to discover and maybe some unexpected finding lay still ahead!

Hey, and why do you think should I care about such medieval stuff like ghosts or such unproven methods like Reki ?It´s just a feeling - a kind of seventh sense - which tells me that the belief in a God is a total different thing as in ghosts or such other "mythical creatures" of human imagination!

And concerning the UFO´s should it be that you have read some books from "Erich von Däniken" ? He is the one who thinks that "ET" - at the start of human civilization - hada short visit here on earth! He is a really good storyteller but nothing more !

Ok Emma, after thinking a bit over this matter and your comments, I have - at the moment - no strong evidences to proof my point of view in a scientific way. In the internet - I have had just a short glimse about this matter - may are some usefull information about this and when I have more time again I want to have a look for it.Because the matter we talked about is really interesting and I think there is enough to discover and maybe some unexpected finding lay still ahead!

Hey, and why do you think should I care about such medieval stuff like ghosts or such unproven methods like Reki ?It´s just a feeling - a kind of seventh sense - which tells me that the belief in a God is a total different thing as in ghosts or such other "mythical creatures" of human imagination!

And concerning the UFO´s should it be that you have read some books from "Erich von Däniken" ? He is the one who thinks that "ET" - at the start of human civilization - hada short visit here on earth! He is a really good storyteller but nothing more !

if you had grown up like a reki master, surrowned by people who believed in that kind of thing as opposed to people who believe in the 'holy ghost' - then you 7th sense would be telling you to believe in Reki .

I'm afraid this is the first time I've heard of Erich von Däniken, but don't worry, I don't believe in the UFO thing at all...

Though not having much time - I´m going home for the next few days - just one short comments

Emma_85 wrote:if you had grown up like a reki master, surrowned by people who believed in that kind of thing as opposed to people who believe in the 'holy ghost' - then you 7th sense would be telling you to believe in Reki.

And if you had grown up in a society which is endeavour to explain the whole world by scientific means you would not allow yourself to hear about your 7th sense because it´s only a sentimental feeling !

Emma_85 wrote:I'm afraid this is the first time I've heard of Erich von Däniken, but don't worry, I don't believe in the UFO thing at all...